+1 What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the capability matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' doc).
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Huge +1 to this. > > The two categories I care most about are: > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under test"; > today this is NeedsRunner. > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > RunnableOnService. > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think we can > make good choices, like we already do. > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a pitfall: > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not have a > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make clear > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at case > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one added. > > * > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > > Kenn > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi Mark, > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > @RunOnRunner > > sound clearer. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very > >> intuitive > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to > run > >> on a service. > >> > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to > >> runner. > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > >> > >> - TestsWithRunners > >> - RunnerExecutable > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Mark > >> > >> > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
